TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2002-07 > 1025635284


From: Tom Clough <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] 5.02 relationship tags
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 11:41:24 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <200207021728.g62HSSW03768@lists5.rootsweb.com>


Add my vote to those who would like to see it changed.
I would even like it to go one step further and have
sentences associated with the various catagories so
that a report could say something like "John Smith was
probably the son of Joe Smith..." for a -CAN tag.
That makes it clear to others the this relationship is
not proven.

Tom

> Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 08:29:04 -0700
> From: Diana Powell <>
> To:
> Subject: Re: [TMG] 5.02 relationship tags
>
> Sorry for the previous "nonsense" message. I
> somehow hit "send"
> accidentally.
>
> I was trying to agree with Teresa's original message
> that the current
> set up of relationship tags is misleading. Would
> appreciate further
> insight from those who posted that they didn't want
> to see it changed.
> If you choose to select an ADO or CAN relationship
> tag to connect two
> individuals that tag shows for the child when you
> are in the parent
> view. So why wouldn't you want it to show that same
> ado or can tag for
> the father/mother when you are in the child view?
> I think it is confusing that it does not do this.
>
> It seems to me if you didn't want the relationship
> between the two
> individuals to be clear from both the vantage point
> of the child and the
> parent you would have just stuck with the BIO tags
> in the first place
> and used some other way to comment on the
> relationship.
>
> Diana Powell


=====
Thomas Clough


http://www.tomclough.com/SS

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free
http://sbc.yahoo.com

This thread: